Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group gives Wisconsin poor mark for public access to details of finances

Group gives D+ for details provided about spending

Mar. 17, 2011

Written by

Ben Jones

Post-Crescent Madison bureau chief

Sunshine Week logo

The Post-Crescent is participating in Sunshine Week, a national effort spearheaded by the American Society of News Editors to promote open government and freedom of information. To read related stories, including the newspaper's report from Wednesday about Wisconsin's Contract Sunshine website, click on postcrescent.com/watchdog.

MADISON — Only 15 states do a worse job than Wisconsin at opening up their government checkbooks for residents to see where the money goes, a nonprofit activist organization's study found.

The Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group gave the Badger State a grade of "D+" in its nationwide analysis of spending transparency.

The study, released Wednesday, noted slight improvement the state made on its Contract Sunshine website, which is meant to provide the public with a way to keep track of tax dollars. Nevertheless the research group wasn't impressed.

"What (Wisconsin is) putting up there is poor, relative to what most states provide," said Bruce Speight, director of the Madison-based nonpartisan group.

"The real problems lie in not giving taxpayers basic information that many other states across the country are providing. Specifically, information about state contracts, information about economic development subsidies, and then making it user friendly," he said.

The study substantiates what The Post-Crescent found last March and again this month — Wisconsin's government struggles to comply with its own 2006 law requiring that information about all contracts worth $10,000 or more be posted online.

As of Tuesday, the Contract Sunshine website listed spending details for 40 of 95 state agencies, boards and universities. That was more than three times as many agencies represented on the site in March 2010, when the newspaper found only 14 had posted information.

Also, the site showed 18 other agencies had indicated to the Government Accountability Board they had no purchases large enough to require posting. That suggested two-thirds of agencies are in compliance.

The newspaper also found 31 agencies that were listed as compliant had posted no contracts, or were listed as noncompliant but had posted information.

Reid Magney, a spokesman for the accountability board, on Wednesday explained various reasons for the inconsistencies, thus indicating as many as 61 of the 95 agencies are in compliance with the law.

The Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group based its state-by-state grades on criteria such as how much spending detail a website contains and how easy it is for users to find.

Kentucky and Texas received marks of "A." Ten states, including Iowa in the Midwest, got an "F."

Unlike many other states, Speight said, Wisconsin does not provide contract documents or post information about subsidies.

"It's good for democracy, giving taxpayers information about what their government is doing …," he said. "Along with that, it bolsters trust in government, and in times when budgets are tight it helps us to save money and make sure that there aren't duplicative programs or that we aren't wasting money on programs that aren't getting results or services that aren't producing.

"At the end of the day, it's about building our trust in government and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse and making sure that we are being efficient in our state spending."

Sherry Stewart, a resident of Scandinavia in Waupaca County who was in Madison on Wednesday, said if residents could more easily track spending online, they might not be caught off guard, as some were by the current state budget deficit.

"It's our money," Stewart said. "We need to know where it's going, what's out there and where it's going to. It's only fair."